Kristen

Mark,
I was unaware that you were not reading the posts that came directly before the one you made. You said “singleness in women,” not “who is in authority over single women.” We had been discussing the way the church ignores single women. Your post was dropped into the middle of that discussion.

Note: I think I made it sound like Martin Luther was deliberately disrespectful to the virgin martyrs. I did not mean to imply that– merely that he worked to correct the over-emphasis on virginity, which (eventually) resulted in Protestant churches not really honoring virginity at all. (I don’t think the topic of honoring “saints” is one that should be addressed in this thread, lest it derail the whole topic.)

Mark, I’m very surprised that you wrote this:
“I guess the obvious point is that singleness in women was not an issue in the New Tetament era, so it’s hardly surprising that no instruction is given on the issue. That is why we must do our best to try and grasp and understanding from other areas in the Bible and apply them today. Again it is not helpful to criticise pastors or churches who attempt to give some instruction on this issue. We must not import our 21st century society back into the Bible and demand answers as we wish. It is not a flaw in the comp position, in as much as it is not a flaw in the egal pos. Neither can offer direct biblical teaching on the issue.”
It seems to me that it is in ignoring single women that we are importing our 21st-century church society back onto the Bible! Paul specifically wrote in 1 Cor. 7 how a woman who chose not to get married was blessed, how she had chosen single-minded devotion to the Lord. Around these and similar words of Paul’s, the early church quickly came to honor virginity more than marriage. Within 50 years after Paul’s letters, Christians were aspiring to virginity as the “best” way to serve God. Out of this rose the “virgin martyrs” — women who resisted the Roman law that women had to marry, choosing to remain virgins for Christ and losing their lives for it. These women were honored up till the time of Martin Luther, who rightly corrected the over-emphasis on virginity, affirming marriage as just as blessed a state.
But recently, starting about 1990, there has been reaction in the church against perceived feminist influences, resulting in an insistence that a woman’s proper role is to be a wife and mother. There has been a devaluing of the blessed state of singleness, particularly in women, as a state in which she is uniquely empowered to serve the Lord in special ways that marriage will curtail in her life. Young women are taught that they are “brides in training” and encouraged to focus their energies on learning the skills to one day be a good wife and mother.
This, I really have to say in support of Paul and his much-needed, balancing passages on the blessings of being single, is an over-emphasis on marriage just as potentially destructive as the early church’s emphasis on virginity.
But the New Testament most assuredly does address single women! It our 21st-century evangelical churches who are making them feel like second-class citizens.

I had a similar quarrel with our church today. The sermon was on “how to fight fair,” and focused on Ephesians 4 regarding good conflict resolution principles. But though the pastor gave one swift mention at the beginning of the sermon that these were good principles for all relationships, he spent the entire rest of the sermon focusing on how to get along with your spouse. It would have been easy to put in a few examples on “fair fighting” with your parents, your friends, etc– but everything was about the marriage relationship. I found myself wondering how it would sound to me if I were single. I suspect I would feel ignored.

TL said,
“Well, I guess one needs to be inspired. My inspiration first was just to see if I could hold my own in the word of God. Now my inspiration is that I have learned that my input affects their lives. And I also have learned that sometimes my words, answers, and attitude help some person to find healing in the Lord and to trust God more.”
Kudos to you, TL. I agree– and also that it’s important to speak out for what you believe is right. If they spurn you, then the responsibility for that is their own– but maybe someone, lurking and reading, will see the difference between their venom and my (hopefully!) mild but firm speaking out. (I think you have been an example for me in this, for which I thank you!)
But maybe one thing I say will resonate with one reader. And that’s good enough reason. But I make it a policy to withdraw as soon as the venom starts flying, because I don’t trust myself not to retaliate in kind.

Cheryl said:
“Now the interesting thing is that it is only married women who need an authority over them to lead them and make their decisions and pull out the male trump card. Apparently single women are capable of operating in faith quite well, serving the Lord with all their hearts and making wise decisions. I wonder why that is?”
My sister, who is in her 40s and single, says this is a moot point, because in complementarian churches she is invisible. She simply doesn’t exist– or at least, no one seriously believes in her existence. Every message, every program, is directed towards families. A woman’s only true worth is in being a wife and mother, after all. That is her “role,” and the only acceptable one for her.
Do other single women here find this to be true?

TL said:
“I wonder if some of you might consider taking your wonderful polite and insightful dialogue over to Parchment and pen to assist with the discussion.”
I tried, TL– but some of the people who post there are toxic. It’s outrageous, some of the horrible things that were just said about egalitarians. I can’t be part of that kind of mud-slinging contest.

Mark,
You said, “So if the original marriage was a foreshadow of Christ/Church, adn authority exists in the church/Christ relatioship, why ought we deny the human relationship is different.” By which I must assume you mean, “why ought we deny the human relationship is NO different,” because that it IS different, is what I am asserting.

To which I can only reply as I did before. Worship exists in the church/Christ relationship. Why ought we deny the human relationship is no different?
Eternal salvation exists in the church/Christ relationship. Why ought we deny the human relationship is no different?
Resurrection exists in the church/Christ relationship. Why ought we deny the human relationship is no different?

Which means that if we say a husband is to his wife, everything Christ is to the church, then we have the husband as his wife’s god, worthy of receiving her worship, able to save her and resurrect her from the dead.
This has to be as unacceptable to you as it is to me.
Therefore, we have to limit the analogy. The husband/wife relationship cannot have everything the church/Christ relationship has. The only question, then, is how we limit it.

Do we limit it according to our own preconceived notions? If authority has traditionally been assumed between husband and wife, therefore we can extrapolate that this is part of what Paul was talking about? How about the ability of Christ to discipline His church? If He can tell the church at Ephesus in Rev. 2:5 that unless she repents, He will come and take her lampstand from its place (note that in Rev. 1:20 the “lampstand” is identified as the church itself– so Christ is warning the church that she will cease to exist as one of His churches)– can the husband tell his wife how she has displeased him and how he is going to discipline her if she doesn’t repent? Can he tell her he will remove her as his wife unless she does his will?

I hope you will say no. I have seen complementarians who believe husbands have the power to discipline their wives– but there is nothing, anywhere in Scripture, that gives a husband such power. Between Christ and the church, though, such power certainly exists.

So– how far DO we take the church/Christ analogy? I for one absolutely refuse to worship my husband, look to him for salvation, or in any other way treat him as if he were Christ– not for one minute will I commit such a grievous sin!

I suggest we limit the church/Christ analogy to only those things that Paul mentions in the verses where he makes the analogy itself. The husband is said to be “head” in a head-body metaphor with the wife as Christ is in a head-body relationship with the church– and Christ as “head,” according to Eph. 4:15 and Col. 2:9, means the source of nourishment and life– it is a provisionary function. But the passage goes on to speak of Christ as Savior– and the comparison to the husband is not extended into this function. The husband is then told to “love” the wife as Christ loved the church when He “gave Himself” for her. Then it goes on to say that Christ sanctifies and cleanses and washes the church, and presents her to Himself– again, the comparison to the husband does not extend here. Then it says the husband should “nourish and cherish” the wife as his own body, just as the Lord does the church. But NOT ONCE does it say the husband should lead his wife as Christ leads the church, or that the husband should command his wife as Christ commands the church. Salvation and cleansing are at least mentioned– but only as being Christ’s job, not the husband’s. Authority isn’t mentioned in this passage at all.
When the Scriptures make a comparison like church/Christ to wife/husband, we must be careful, or we’ll end up idolaters. We must be careful to add nothing to what the passage actually says– not even authority.

SM said,
“What is it in the relationship between a man and wife and a single woman and her father/pastor/boyfriend that constitutes a right to command, direct, dtermine, command obedience, etc. even lovingly?”
SM, I’m afraid that the rationale, conscious or otherwise, is that women are property. That has historically been the attitude of men since written history began, and it still exists in many societies and cultures and is imbibed by people even in Western society without their realization– pornography, anyone? — and is one of the things that is meant to be different in Christ’s Kingdom.

Elastagirl and Greg (#87 & 88) — I am in agreement with you, too. Sometimes endless wrangling over what the Bible says and doesn’t say eclipses simply following Jesus and His command to “love one another, as I have loved you” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The problem, of course, is that when someone finds justification in the Bible to assert the God-given authority of one group over another, and that authority can and has been used to harm a whole group of people, then because the Bible is held to be the sole authority on faith and practice, such claims really must be refuted from the Bible. But I think a really good test of an interpretation is, “Does following this interpretation uphold the command to do unto others as we would have them do unto us? Or does this interpretation bind up a heavy burden to tie upon someone’s back?”
I would really much rather it be the case that this conversation about whether women are born to be under male authority, was unnecessary, because everyone recognized that it was against the law of “do unto others.” If you wouldn’t want someone asserting that they have a God-given right to authority over you, regardless of their calling, character or competence, but simply by the privilege of their birth and the lack of privilege of yours– then do not so assert to someone else!
But unfortunately the conversation is necessary, because as long as some sectors of Christianity assert male privilege, then I must reply to the contrary. It might be different if they’d just keep it to themselves and practice it at home with their own wives (I wouldn’t mind– if it works for them for him to lead and her to follow, and they both feel happy, loved and respected, I have no quarrel), but they must needs tell me how to run my marriage too (or rather, how my husband must run our marriage, since he’s supposed to be the leader– but he wants an equal partner with equal say, and I’m happy to submit!)

Getting back to the issue of whether authority of husbands is a God-given mandate in Ephesians 5:
Understanding the underlying cultural assumptions can be very important in helping us see what’s missing in this passage, which the original audience could not have helped noticing, but which we tend to overlook.
Here’s a quote from Michael Kruse in The Kruse Kronicle, about the ancient world’s household codes:
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/07/household-the-h.html
“The ancient Greeks saw the household as the primary institution through which order was kept in society. To promote effective household management Greek sages would offer their advice to the paterfamilias on household management. These discourses came to be known as the “household codes” or “household tables” (and sometimes the German haustafel.) Aristotle’s household instructions (fourth century B.C.E.) in Book I of Politics are among the most commonly referenced of the household codes. Included in the codes are usually instructions about how the paterfamilias should manage his wife, his children and his slaves. There is often wisdom given about how to manage wealth. Most codes articulate the importance of the paterfamilias dutifully fulfilling his role for the good of society. Some sages advocated an authoritarian approach and others a more benevolent demeanor but whatever their take was on style, they were unified in their conviction that the paterfamilias was obligated to rule his household for the good of society.”
When I quoted from 1 Peter 5:1-5 earlier, I couldn’t help noticing the specific instructions he gave to elders about leading the church: “Be shepherds of God’s flock, serving as overseers. . . not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples. . .”
How easy would it have been for Peter and Paul, both of whom set out lists of household instructions as Kruse describes, to have said something similar for husbands that Peter says to church elders? “Husbands,” he could have said, “guide and lead your wives as those under your care, not lording it over them, but being examples.” The original readers, accustomed to ancient Roman and Greek household codes, would have found the complete absense of any such instruction to be absolutely glaring. And yet we, coming from a society where husbands are not considered patriarchs of their clans, miss this– and we see the opposite of what they saw, which was a omission of any instruction to husbands to take authority, replaced instead by a command to love and act like Christ did in His submissive death!

Greg, a lot depends on whether the expression of Christianity is Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant mainline, Protestant evangelical, etc. Protestants, and especially evangelicals, are “Sola Scriptura,” meaning that they consider the Bible their sole authority on faith and practice. The conversation here is pretty much evangelical Protestant in tone. Reason and common sense are important, but God’s inspiration as given in Scripture is primary– though we must, as a matter of course, use our own reason and common sense to help our interpretation of inspired Scripture.

Mark said,
“Are you willing to say that the Christ/Church command is only cultural?”
No– I don’t agree with the “only cultural” idea– that we can ignore some portions of scripture because they’re only cultural. Instead, I believe that in every passage, we are to take into account the shared cultural assumptions of writer and audience, so that we can understand and obey the principle being conveyed, that the original audience would have understood.
So– the idea that the church is to Christ more like a wife is to a husband than a slave is to a master, is a beautiful, timeless teaching that I would never seek to circumvent. Nevertheless, the analogy cannot be taken too far. Look what happens if we apply the analogy strictly across the board in Ephesians 5:25-27:
Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it. Even so the husband ought to give himself for his wife. Ok so far, right? But going on: Christ gave Himself that He might sanctify and cleanse the church. Therefore husbands also ought to consider themselves like Christ, capable of sanctifying and cleansing their wives. (Yes, I have seen kind of thinking in some forms of complementarianism!) As Christ presented to Himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle, holy and blameless, so it is the husband’s job to present to himself a glorious wife, without spot or wrinkle, holy and blameless. The wife, then, isn’t really Christ’s, she’s her husband’s– and only Christ’s as she relates to him. Frankly– yuck– and I don’t believe for a moment that you would take the analogy this far.
Clearly the church/Christ comparison only goes so far, and to take it further is idolatry. The wife is to submit to the husband as the church does to Christ. Does this mean that the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church in every way? Clearly not! The husband is not the savior, sanctifier, or redeemer of the wife. The husband is not her god. I’m sure we can agree on these things.
So– how far should we actually take the analogy? I suggest that we take it only as far as Paul took it: the husband is to love the wife and give himself up for her, nourish and cherish her, treat her as he treats his own body. The wife is to submit herself to her husband in everything, that she might be loved, lifted up, nourished and cherished. Not a hint is spoken of her being led or commanded, or of the husband getting the final say, here.
So– what part of Christ’s actions towards the church are shown in THIS passage for husbands to emulate? Does this passage talk about Christ leading the church? No. Does it talk about Him giving commands to the church? No. Does it talk about His authority over the church? No. It talks about His giving Himself up for the church. The readers would remember the abhorrent criminal’s death of the cross, in ways that we often miss through familiary. They would understand that Christ’s giving Himself up for the church was in every way an act of submission. He submitted like a lamb who opens not His mouth, to people who wanted to kill Him. He said He had the power to ask the Father for a legion of angels, but He refused to exercise that power. Instead He was like a lamb to the slaughter. He did this to bring the church up towards Himself, so that she could have pure fellowship with Him. For husbands in a culture where women were considered very little above animals, the idea was radical– go down to where your wife is stuck, and give yourself to raising her towards yourself.

Susanna said:
“The centurion is said to “hypo exousian tassomenos.” Lit. under authority set.”
Susanna, I am here seeing what I think are the two word forms included in “submit,” with the word “authority” inserted in between them.
Doesn’t this render it conclusive that “submit” cannot automatically convey the idea of authority– for if it did, there would be no need to qualify it with the word “authority,” because if the idea were already there, that would make it redundant?

Hmm. That’s true enough, Gengwall. And there’s also the very real fact that the church subjected herself to Christ– it is that which sets her apart from the world, which is also subject to Christ but only in the passive sense. So it does make more sense for the construction to be referring to action on the part of the church, and of the wife.

Another option is that while v. 21 means “allow yourselves to be subject to one another,” the next use of the word in the phrase “for as the church is subject to Christ, so is the wife to her husband in everything” is indeed a simple statement of fact. Whether simply in ancient culture where husbandly authority was the norm, or in the more spiritual sense in which Charis means it, the wife definitely was in that position without any act of the will on her part. So the meaning would be, “allow yourselves to be subject to one another– wives to your husbands (because you already are subject), and husbands, love your wives in a way that sacrifices yourself to lift her up.” This would not be inconsistent with the logical construction of the passage.

Charis, your construction is fine, I think, but reading it the way you’re reading it leads to a very legitimate question about the text. Paul is addressing the church, telling Christians how to function together. He tells them in the verses just before v. 21 not to get drunk but be filled with the Spirit (definitely passive voice, as we cannot fill ourselves with the Spirit), to sing to one another, to give thanks– and then to “be subject” to one another. These are clearly all actions that Christians are to take. Even though we cannot fill ourselves with the Spirit, we apparently have some role in allowing ourselves to be filled, or Paul would not so instruct us. So if being subject has nothing to do with any action on our part, why is it included as part of a set of instructions?
(Personally, I see the mitigating factor in the wife being submissive “in everything,” as the fact that the husband is supposed to be self-sacrificing for her and raising her up, as Christ sacrificed Himself to make the church “glorious.” She is supposed to be submitting to being made glorious, not to being trampled down– and if he doesn’t, she has a Christian duty to speak to him about his sin– and if he does not listen, to bring witnesses, etc. The bit in 1 Peter about winning him “without a word” does not apply because that’s addressed to wives married to unbelieving husbands.)
I think “be subject” must mean something along the lines of “allow yourselves to be subject,” just as “be filled with the Spirit” must mean “allow yourselves to be filled,” or the passage wouldn’t make sense.

Mark,
With regards to your post #4, I have posted a great many posts in the earlier thread that explain my position on authority. In short, it is that in the Kingdom of God, authority does not come by being born to it (as a man by being born male would be born to one day have leadership over a wife), but is according to calling, character and competence. I do not wish to completely start over with all my arguments for this position. Please go back and read my earlier posts.
With regards to Galatians 3:28, the context includes salvation, but its focus is unity– it ends, “for we are all ONE in Christ Jesus,” not “for we are all saved by Christ Jesus.” How there can be true unity when one group believes they are born to have authority over another group which is born to be subordinate, completely escapes me.
With regards to submission being the same as subordination, I disagree with that and with BDAG. Several examples have already been given above, of how Clement and Polycarp used the word we translate “submit” in a way that does not connote subordination. Please read post #1 above. I find Clement and Polycarp, who spoke Koine Greek and lived during or near the time of Paul, to be a lot more compelling than you or BDAG on what a word in their own language meant.
I used to be charismatic, but when I was, I wasn’t egalitarian. I came to be egalitarian by being convinced of the position, not because of what church I belong to.

Sorry, this:
If the baby suddenly loses in the book we’re “reading”. . .
Should have read, “If the baby suddenly loses interest in the book we’re “reading”. . .

I find 1 Peter 5:5 to be compelling. Peter has spent most of his letter telling Christians in a pagan culture how to get along in that culture, including submission to the authorities which are in place in that culture (acknowledging the existence of an authority is not the same thing as setting up an authority or even endorsing the authority as having a God-given right to rule. It is simply acknowledging the existence of an authority.) Peter then goes on to inter-church relations– and just as we see in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (focusing on inter-church relations), we see that “one another” language.
Here’s a link to 1 Peter 5:5 in an online interlinear:
http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1pe5.pdf
The meaning from the interlinear appears to be “All of you, submit to one another in humility like a slave’s apron.”
The use of “all of you” negates the possibility of arguing here that Peter simply meant “some (those under authority) to others (those in authority).” He just finished giving specific instructions to elders (as those in authority), and then to youths (as those under authority)– and then he goes on to say, “all of you, submit to one another in humility.” Meaning both the elders and the youths– in fact, the whole church– is to submit to one another. And what does the submission look like? It looks like “humility like a slave’s apron.”
To address what Mark said in his post #614 in the earlier thread– This does not mean that the elders were supposed to treat the youths as if the youths were in authority over them. Submission is not some sort of blanket application that looks the same in every case. People are individuals, and submission is a heart of service and yielding to the real needs of another.
I work in the nursery at my church, and I can honestly say that a large part of what I do involves this sort of submission to the babies. I don’t force them to do what I want, I look at their needs and what they want to do. If the baby suddenly loses in the book we’re “reading,” I lay the book aside. I let the baby take the lead. If the baby shows interest in a toy, I help the baby reach the toy. Even though I am in authority over the baby, and will exercise that authority when necessary (such as when the baby hits another baby), my submission to the baby is NOT about authority. It’s something else entirely. It has nothing to do with who is in authority. It has to do with the baby having needs for human interaction on its own terms, and my ability to meet it according to those terms, where it is incapable of meeting me.
This is clearly not the same sort of submission that two adults would use towards one another. But it’s submission, nevertheless.
The Bible speaks frequently of submission as submission to authority– but not always. The “one another” verses cannot, by their very nature, imply authority.
This question of what “submission” means is, then, tangential to the question of whether the husband’s authority over the wife as seen in the Bible is just an acknowledged part of the (fallen) culture, or is part of God’s original design and His plan for Kingdom relationships. I have seen no evidence in the Scriptures to the latter.

Mark said:
“Now James 3 is puzzling. Which verse? Where is the VERB translated ‘submit’ which is in relation to Eph 5:21. I sure can’t see it. Maybe you mean ‘eupeithes’ in verse 17, but that is not the same verb used in Eph 5:21 or any other NT command for person A to ‘submit’ to person B. I find it hard to dialogue when we are not even on the same page to begin with.
So I appreciate your challenge, but it appears you are redefining NT words to fit your theology. James 3, is in no way related to the relevant discussion on Eph 5:21.”
Well, my mistake, then. I sincerely did believe the Greek word there was the same; I will therefore yield the point, as verse 17 says wisdom does. However, I am not redefining words to fit my theology. I was mistaken; that is all. It would have been more charitable of you not to jump to conclusions.
Cheryl, might I ask that you open a new thread for comments? It is getting increasingly difficult to post comments here; I suspect some kind of system overload.

Mark said:
“Yes my wife and i are included in Eph 5:21 since we are both members of the Christian community. We are included in the ‘one another’ as are all Christians in the Church. We will submit to those in the Christian community that God places over us.”
Then your insistence on consistency in Bible exegesis goes out the window. You are not submitting to “one another” but only to “some others.”
You are reading “submit” as “yield to the authority of,” and sometimes it does mean that. You give no compelling argument as to why it always means that. Neither do you explain why “one another” doesn’t mean “one another” but only “some to others.” But if submission always means “submission to authority,” then of course “one another can ONLY mean “some to others.” The fact remains, however, that “one another” DOESN”T mean “some to others.” It means “one another.” Therefore submission cannot always mean “submission to authority” — for the very reason you gave, that if everyone submitted to everyone else’s authority, no authority or leadership of any kind could exist.
One example where “submit” clearly does not mean “to authority” is where it is used in James 3 about the wisdom which is from above being “submissive.” The clear sense is that true wisdom submits to the valid arguments of others. Authority is not even a topic in that passage.

Charis quoted Mary Kassan:
“One commentator has suggested English equivalents of ‘Piercer’ and ‘Pierced One.’ The bodies of male and female reflect this idea.”
It seems more logical that the names reflect the physical bodies, not that the physical bodies reflect the names. It’s common in language that names reflect some aspect of what that which is named is and does. “Piercer” and “Pierced One” seem very logical ways to describe male and female bodies in terms of what makes them male and female. I note, though, that both male and female together are called “Adam” in Genesis 5:2. This reflects that the “totality of their essence” is more similar than it is different. I see no scriptural backing for claiming that all of what a woman is, is defined by the fact that she is “pierced,” or that all of what a man is, is defined by the fact that he is the “piercer.” As I mentioned earlier, in Song of Solomon, one metaphor the Lover gives his Beloved is “an army with banners,” — a metaphor of strength– and one metaphor the Beloved gives of her Lover is “henna blossoms” — a metaphor of softness. Apparently it is possible, even desirable, for males and females to exhibit both characteristics.
Many times in our marriage, in sexual relations and otherwise, I am the iniator and he is the responder, and vice versa. He likes it that way. Am I denying my nature every time I initiate a suggestion to go to a movie? Is he denying his nature every time he agrees?
Or– here’s an interesting one– what if I ask him what he wants for dinner and he says, “I don’t know, you decide”? Or what if I just go ahead and make what I want to make and “initiate” dinner, and he responsively eats it? Am I being unfeminine in this? Is he being unmasculine? Or is this simply normal give-and-take between two human beings who love and respect each other?
Carrying the one physical aspect of male-female bodies out into all other realms, is not something I can agree with or find any scriptural backing for.

As far as biblical authority being different from worldly authority– I agree, and maintain what I have been saying from the beginning: In the Kingdom of God, under the New Covenant, authority is not according to the flesh, but is according to calling, character, and competence. Male authority (authority as a right, just for being born male) is of the flesh. Some males have the character to act as Jesus said, and be servants– and some don’t. But the authority-subordination paradigm says that regardless of their character and competence, they still get to exercise authority over their wives. The results, as I and others have said, have often been disastrous.
Paul said that a new believer should not be chosen as an elder or overseer, for this very reason. And yet male new believers get to be overseers to their wives. Does this make sense? Is it consistent with Paul’s other teachings? Is it consistent with the New Covenant at all?
The passage quoted above says, “Whoever desires” leadership should be a servant. There is no hint in Jesus’ words that he would consider anyone in the Kingdom to be born to leadership by fleshly right.

To TL (#510)
Aww. Thank you for that and the other encouragements you have passed my way in this discussion. 🙂

Dave said:
“In fact it says that authrity has the ability to; command, act, control, exercise power, have credability, exercise dominion, etc.
Although I agree that some of these things can be done in more and less loving ways, the concept of control is essentially anti love as a concept. I hope I do not need to explain why!” (Emphasis mine.)
NN countered this in #512 with a couple of scriptures that proved Christ could be in authority and still be loving. But that’s not what Dave was talking about. He was talking about the exercise of control as an aspect of authority, not being loving. It has never been my experience in my personal life, or my understanding in the reading of scripture, that God controls us. Rather, God draws and woos us into His arms.
As for #516 — Tiffany, you have placed a good deal of emphasis on the idea that self-sacrificial love by husbands is, or should be, normative. And yes, it should be. But surely you realize how many Christian marriages exist where men think Ephesians 5 gives them the right to control, dominate and be served by their wives– and many churches, when wives complain about this, counsel the wives to be more submissive, giving tacit approval to the husband to run his home however he chooses. When I see a Christian marriage where the husband manifestly goes against this unfortunate dynamic, I find it worthy of praise.

In other words, many husbands are quite pleased to exercise the “control” aspect of authority that Dave speaks against. I’m glad that in NN and Tiffany’s marriage (I did understand correctly that you two are married, right?), this is not the case– and NN is also to be lauded for that.
However, all of this is tangential to the question of whether God gives husbands authority over their wives in the first place– or whether such authority is a result of the curse and of unrighteous human power structures. But I will note this– authority is easily abused. Christian husbands abuse their supposed authority quite regularly. Many of us women here either are, or have close friends/relatives who are, victims of this abuse. We are excited when we see marriages where this does not happen– even if we know such marriages should be normative, that is often sadly not our own experience. (This should not be considered a statement in any way about my own marriage, btw. My husband has always laid down his life for me, whether he considered himself in authority over me or not– but we abandoned the authority-subordination paradigm some time ago and have never regretted it.)

TL, I’m a bit confused by this:
“Even though I don’t believe God gave husbands authority over their wives, the world does believe so.”
I think perhaps there is a typo here? The ancient world believed so; and those who followed Zeus/Jupiter as their god, did so especially. I’m sure you and I are in agreement that the church’s belief in this idea came about largely through the influence of Aristotelian thinking on early Christianity.
I suspect that what you actually meant was that the church (or portions of the church) believes so. But the modern world tends to believe neither in God nor in husbandly authority.
And what you and I have both seen is that openness to God by those in the world is directly, and negatively, affected by this issue– in the same way that they still blame the church for clinging to the institution of slavery (forgetting that Christians were also largely responsible for movements that ended slavery in America and Europe). They see a God who would order husbandly authority as unjust, unrighteous, and unworthy of being followed. Paul’s whole emphasis on submission to the institutions of the world that Christians found themselves in “that the gospel not be hindered” has been rendered ineffective by the church’s insistence on clinging to tradition rather than studying to see what he actually meant about husband-wife relations. The gospel is hindered by the teaching of husbandly authority over wives– and such teaching was never Paul’s to begin with.

Dave, I have to say you are an amazing example of following Ephesians 5. You could have just jostled your wife and told her the baby was crying (many husbands would have), but instead you laid down your own needs and sacrificed for her. You nurtured and cared for her like your own body (because I’m sure your own body would rather have stayed in bed!). You loved your wife more than yourself, just as Christ loves the church. I’m totally impressed!

Another question– as far as eros and the Song of Solomon– is there hierarchy in the Song of Solomon? Is the lover in the Song ever shown to be acting in authority over the Beloved? Does she ever act towards him in terms ofh him having authority over her?
Other than the established fact that a woman who is pregnant or nursing is vulnerable in ways that renders her in need of protection, which the man seems designed by God to provide, I see no assymetry in their relationship– particularly not in the eros relationship. The Lover described the Beloved as “majestic as an army with banners.” (ch. 6 v. 4) — a metaphor of power. She describes him as a “cluster of henna blossoms” (ch. 1 v. 14)– a metaphor of softness and beauty.
I, too, don’t think Paul is address eros love in Ephesians 5. But I also disagree that eros love is assymetric or hierarchical in any way.

NN said:
“You are saying that Paul’s instructions in Ephesians to husbands and wives should actually be read as “wives submit to your husbands if they are a christian” – since you claim Paul is talking about only about christian-christian relationships.”
Honestly, NN, it’s getting frustrating that you tell me what I just said, and it isn’t what I said at all.
Paul is talking to Christian husbands and Christians wives. He tells them that within the assumed societal structure of male authority, there is mutual submission among Christians. Paul tells the wives to go ahead and submit to their (Christian) husbands. He tells the husbands what their “submission” (he just used that word to ALL CHRISTIANS) in v. 21) should look like– that as Christ was in the high position and came down low in submission to glorify his Bride, so should they. He is not saying “only submit to your husbands if they are Christians” because he is not addressing the issue of non-believers at all– Peter does that, but Paul is talking about what things should look like if you are “in Christ.” Obviously some women in Ephesus were married to unbelievers, and some husbands in Ephesus were married to unbelievers. Since the Epistles were circulated throughout the churches, the Christians in Ephesus would also at some point have heard Peter’s letter, which addresses the issue specifically. But a woman in Ephesus who was married to an unbeliever would still hear that she is to submit to her husband “as unto the Lord” — not meaning “as if he was your Lord” (that would be heresy and idolatry), but that she should consider her submission to him to be submission to the Lord. But her unbelieving husband, not being present at the reading of the letter, would not hear Paul’s instructions to lay down his privilege for his wife. Paul’s instruction could still carry her through, though, because the advice to wives in either case is the same– submit.
In both cases, wives are under cultural authority structures which include husbandly rule. But in Ephesians, Paul is focusing on the fact that “in Christ,” submission should be mutual. Husbands are told to emulate Christ in submission, not to emulate Christ in authority.
So– if both Peter and Paul assume social authority structures, and counsel Christians on how to live within those social structures rather than rebelling against them– does that mean that we, living now under social structures that look a lot more like what Paul said Kingdom living was all about (equality for servants who are no longer owned by their masters, government by rulers who no longer consider themselves divinely above those they lead, and equal empowerment for husbands and wives), should go back to first-century marital authority structures, as though Paul and Peter were commanding them instead of assuming them?

Re-reading my post, I’m not sure I was entirely clear. 1st Peter does mention that only “some” husbands are unbelieving– but Peter istalking within the context of Christian submission to the world’s authority structures. Paul in Ephesians, on the other hand, is talking about Christian relationships to one another within those worldly authority structures– and that Christian relationships are not about authority-subordination, but about mutual submission and those in the high places laying down their privileges, even as Christ laid down His.